Lugo v. LJN Toys, Ltd.

552 N.E.2d 162, 75 N.Y.2d 850, 552 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 233
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 20, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 552 N.E.2d 162 (Lugo v. LJN Toys, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lugo v. LJN Toys, Ltd., 552 N.E.2d 162, 75 N.Y.2d 850, 552 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 233 (N.Y. 1990).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

Plaintiffs instituted this action to recover for personal injuries sustained when the infant plaintiff was struck in the eye by part of a toy manufactured by defendant and thrown by a playmate. They claim that the toy, a doll known as "VoltronDefender of the Universe”, was a replica of a well-known [852]*852television cartoon character who overcame enemies by hurling his shield at them. The part of the doll that struck the infant plaintiff was detachable and described variously as a spinning "shield”, "blade” or "star” with eight points around its circumference. Plaintiffs allege the product, marketed as suitable for children age four and older, was defective because improperly designed and because marketed without adequate warnings.

A manufacturer who sells a product in a defective condition is liable for injury which results to another when the product is used for its intended purpose or for an unintended but reasonably foreseeable purpose (see, Micallef v Miehle Co., 39 NY2d 376, 385-386; Biss v Tenneco, Inc., 64 AD2d 204, 206). Plaintiff has submitted expert evidence that, based upon customs and standards in the toy safety community, the part was defective because detachable from the doll and that throwing it was foreseeable because of the extensive television exposure in which Voltron did so. This was sufficient response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment to establish questions for the jury of whether the product was defective and reasonably safe for its intended use or a reasonably foreseeable unintended use.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 05635 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Sofia Fasolas v. Bobcat of New York, Inc
New York Court of Appeals, 2019
Acquisto v. Manitowoc Co.
273 F. Supp. 3d 343 (W.D. New York, 2017)
Hockler v. William Powell Co.
129 A.D.3d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Porrazzo v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC
822 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D. New York, 2011)
Reis v. Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
73 A.D.3d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Young v. Daglian
63 A.D.3d 1050 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Giannotti v. Mercedes Benz U.S.A.
56 A.D.2d 610 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Kosicki v. Spring Garden Ass'n
42 A.D.3d 909 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Watson v. Scott McLaughlin Truck & Equipment Sales
23 A.D.3d 1051 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Repka v. Arctic Cat, Inc.
20 A.D.3d 916 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Estrada v. Berkel Inc.
14 A.D.3d 529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Mercogliano v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
303 A.D.2d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Haight v. Banner Metals, Inc.
300 A.D.2d 356 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Lamuraglia v. New York City Transit Authority
299 A.D.2d 321 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Beneway v. Superwinch, Inc.
216 F. Supp. 2d 24 (N.D. New York, 2002)
Marcano v. City of New York
296 A.D.2d 43 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Valentin v. C.G. Bretting, Mfg., Co.
278 A.D.2d 230 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
552 N.E.2d 162, 75 N.Y.2d 850, 552 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lugo-v-ljn-toys-ltd-ny-1990.